Jon, there are a few of your statements I'd like to talk with you about when more time allows; but, for now, I'll contend the valididty of this DRAFT advocated by you below:
> The social contract is the key ingredient, and it is not just a > non-aggression compact, but a mutual defense compact, carrying a > duty not just not to harm others, but to actively defend them > against attacks by others. You WANT other people to have a 'duty' to defend you; and ironically assert validity for this 'draft' of their life, liberty and property based on PNDG (people are no damn good) You seem to want to violate people in order to save them :) Not only do I disagree with your ad hoministic PNDG; but, if PNDG was indeed the case, don't you see a practical problem with implementation of this coercive 'social engineering' approach? -Terry Liberty Parker Free On-demand Playbacks On-line via AustinLibertyInterNet Radio/TV at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LibertyProspects/links VoiceCall 1.512.462.1776 every Sunday 6:30pm (central) to ? I host informal discussion to which all are welcome who want to consider ideas & issues of Liberty & Justice for ALL in Hickory St Grill at 8th & Congress, Austin TX Look for me, MyPicAt http://profiles.yahoo.com/txliberty --- In [email protected], Jon Roland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Paul wrote: > > >In my opinion, 4 volumes is TOO MUCH law. > > > That is easy to say if you have never actually read Blackstone's > /Commentaries/ or its equivalent. > http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb-0000.htm . But try reading them and > then ask what elements you would leave out, and whether ordinary people > could actually make judicial decisions without some guidance on those > elements beyond a vague "non-aggression principle". Also look at > http://www.constitution.org/cmt/cjs/leg_res.htm for an overview of the > field of law, and ask what elements you would omit. > > >Also, the U.S. Government > >has absolutely no Constitutional authority to prevent other nations > >from developing nukes, viruses, etc. > > > The Constitution is not about external relations or activities, other > than the clauses that exclusively authorizes Congress to declare war or > issue letters of marque and reprisal, or to punish offenses against the > law of nations. It is also not a suicide pact that denies to the > government all means to defend the American people from real threats, > including prospective threats. That is left to the discretion of the > President and Congress, with the above restrictions on their respective > powers. > > > > > > >We don't intervene until we are attacked. This is the definition of > >the word DEFENSE. > > > > > That would be great if the only kinds of attacks we face were relatively > minor ones like Pearl Harbor or 9/11, but a massive thermonuclear > attack, or even setting off a nuke to take out one city, or releasing a > plague that wipes out most of humanity. It also makes a difference if > the attack can come from an anonymous source that we can never identify > to retaliate against. I suspect your view on this issue will be revised > if you survive a nuclear attack that totally wipes out your city and > almost everyone you know, and leaves you in a condition that makes you > envy the dead. > > >Some people don't have the intestinal fortitude to wait until we are > >attacked. They are scared so they want to attack first. They toss > >their libertarian principles out the window at the first sign that > >someone else may be as strong as us. > > > > > We are entering an era in which single individuals can develop and use > the means to wipe out billions of people, using readily available > materials and tools. You need to wake up to the new reality. We aren't a > bunch of colonial-era agrarians any more. > > >IT IS NEVER EVER EVER EVER OK TO INITIATE FORCE (physical or > >otherwise). IT IS ONLY OK TO USE DEFENSIVE FORCE. > > > > > If you get reliable information someone is preparing to attack you, and > will if you don't get him first, that falls into the "credible threat" > realm. > > >Libertarian principles apply in all situations and in all dealings > >with others regardless of where those others happen to be or what > >devices they happen to be building. > > > > > If those really were libertarian principles then they would be suicide > principles. You are trying to extend principles designed for dealings > among people within a civil society, under a viable social contract, to > a world in a state of nature, or state or war. If there is no society in > which most people are fully engaged in making work, with only a few > exceptions that are manageable, then libertarian principles do not > apply. The social contract is the key ingredient, and it is not just a > non-aggression compact, but a mutual defense compact, carrying a duty > not just not to harm others, but to actively defend them against attacks > by others. Too many libertarians fail to recognize that. > I am a constitutionalist, not an unrealistic dreamer about human nature > that doesn't exist. > But this exchange also illustrates the dangers of trying to reduce > complex social and legal decisionmaking to simplistic rules that are > stated in a single sentence that everyone understands differently. > > > > > > >--- In [email protected], Jon Roland <jon.roland@> wrote: > > > > > >>The tension here is is between Terry's attempt to reduce what might be > >>called a "rule of civic conduct" down to a simple "non-aggression > >>principle", and the recognition by most of the rest of us that the > >>statements of that principle simply do not, and cannot, contain within > >>them the amount of logical information needed to derive decisions for > >>how people should conduct themselves in a full range of everyday > >>situations. > >>At the Founding of this country most of those rules could be subsumed > >>within a body of legal traditions and Blackstone's 4-volume set of > >>Commentaries on Common Law, covering everything from tort to fraud to > >>contracts to probate to nuisance to property rights disputes. It would > >>be absurd to try to deal with the complexities of life today with so > >>little law and government. We have entire libraries full of it. > >>Now one could argue that we have overcomplicated the issues, but an > >>equally good case can be made that we have no complicated them enough. > >>It can also be argued that the essence of that entire body of law and > >>government is expressed in the "non-aggression principle". But if that > >>argument is made then what one is doing is loading a lot more > >>information into the terms "non-aggression" or "initiation of force" > >>than those words have for most readers. Complexity should be reduced as > >>far as possible but no farther. > >>Consider the concept of "recklessness". What is "reckless" behavior, > >> > >> > >and > > > > > >>when does it become a "treat" justifying the "initiation" of > >> > >> > >"force"? If > > > > > >>some guy is playing around with fissionable materials, at what point do > >>we intervene to deal with the risk that he will set off a nuclear > >>explosion? If a guy is experimenting with genetic engineering of > >>viruses, at what point do we intervene to deal with the risk that he > >>will develop a plague that will wipe out humanity? Do we wait for it to > >>happen, or step in to prevent it, and if so, how? > >>The "non-aggression principle" seems to presume a world of basically > >>civilized people whose behavior only needs adjustment at the margins. > >>That is not the world we live in. Too many people are not only not > >>civilized, but actively bent on exterminating us, and extinguishing > >>anyone who doesn't think like they do. Humanity worldwide is not in a > >>state of civil society, but in a state of war. Libertarian principles > >>apply to isolated pockets of civilization where conditions permit them > >>to operate, and we can all try to extend those pockets to the entire > >>world, but we are a long way from achieving that happy state of affairs. > >> > >>-- Jon > >> > >>---------------------------------------------------------------- > >>Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757 > >>512/299-5001 www.constitution.org jon.roland@ > >>---------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757 > 512/299-5001 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
